Modern Gnosticism

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by flowperson

By the way it was The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trisgismestrus I believe. I've done considerable research into the origins of alchemy, and this work, attributed to the Egyptian god Thoth, was a foundational document in the practice. Thoth was said to have brought the knowledge of the art of metalworking to the ancient Egyptians, BTW. Most of the rest of the really ancient knowledge in alchemy came from India and China.

flow....

Not meaning to go off on a tangent, Flow, but this last part reminds me of the importance of the myth behind alchemy itself. We know, for example, of the symbolism ... the alchemical transformation that takes place in our lives, demonstrated in the transmutation of base metals into gold, and in the search for the Philosopher's Stone, the Elixir of Life. S/he who would reify these myths, concretize this symbolism, and search vainly for various material riches and personal benefits - has missed the point entirely, and will never succeed!

I may be rather a novice when it comes to Kabbalah and Gnosticism, but I am well aware of certain layers of the symbolism of Alchemy - the Inner Alchemy, if you will. And yes, as you point out, wil, certain interpretations will be literal, necessarily so. The Sacred Fire (Kundalini), for example, being the catalyst of the alchemical transmutation, is not simply someone's poetic metaphor. Also the requirement for PURITY of mind, body and speech, is not just a good idea ...


I can't provide too much insight into Gnosticism from the standpoint of a practitioner or adherent, nor do I wish to derail the discussion, but I do think it is worth emphasizing and underscoring the etymological root of the word. We probably all recognize it: gnosis, to know, or knowledge ... and Webster has this to say by way of a definition:

esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation

This is not about beliefs, or believing. Nor thought, as such. "I think that there exists an inner Knowing, or I believe it is possible to know." Rather, we begin with the assertion that spiritual truth CAN be grasped and understood, on various levels, to varying extents, ultimately by everyone (since the path is an open path, NOT a special teaching available only to the privileged few).

What is required, to become a gnostic, not so much in the formalized sense of the word, or in terms of a Gnostic Church and so forth, but just as a knower, is that one first admit of a-gnosticism (Socrates is the example of this, par excellence). One need not abandon one's Faith, or faith in ... a specific set of teachings, doctrines, etc. One need not cease reciting whatever Creed(s) one has come to value. But one MUST admit of one's own ignorance (factually speaking, not pejoratively), and be willing to ask the most basic of questions - even again, and again, and again, if one has already done so.

What I find is that quite often folks are not willing even to admit simply that they do not know. Or, if pressed, they will admit as to being uncertain, yet insist that somehow their faith is unassailable, while the only thing they can provide to defend this assertion is external argument. Gnosticism, whether with a capital `G' or a lowercase `g,' is not about externals. It is about direct understanding at the level of KNOWELDGE - but again, here we must be careful not to reify and concretize the KNOWING (process), by allowing the word `knowledge' to come to signify some one or another body of teachings!

To quote from H. P. Blavatsky, a Knower and a great Messenger of 19th Century Occultism, "The mind is the great slayer of the Real." And beyond the mind ... there is Knowing. Beyond even that - a Peace which passeth Understanding.

May we all come to this same Peace, and this Universal Understanding (gnosis), as soon as humanly possible - and in time to get on with the show, folks.

Love, Light, and Peace,

taijasi

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Your question relies on a false premise, in other words.

My question, revised:
If the Gnostic believes in the 'free thinking' ...
... why then does he insist that Scripture cannot it be a literally true?'

Thomas

Same objection. The Gnostic doesn't insist on anything other than what he knows. We can conduct an investigation using the methods of science and reason (to the extent possible) into the matter of whether Scripture is literally true. One may or may not be convinced by the evidence discovered. Regardless, it can not be "known" either by the orthodox or the gnostic . . . for starters, because neither was present to witness it in the first place.

The Gnostic doesn't insist that anyone agree about whether Scripture is literally true.

So, sorry, Thomas. Same objection.

Now, regarding my questions for you, have you had a chance to formulate an answer?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by taijasi

What I find is that quite often folks are not willing even to admit simply that they do not know. Or, if pressed, they will admit as to being uncertain, yet insist that somehow their faith is unassailable, while the only thing they can provide to defend this assertion is external argument. Gnosticism, whether with a capital `G' or a lowercase `g,' is not about externals. It is about direct understanding at the level of KNOWELDGE - but again, here we must be careful not to reify and concretize the KNOWING (process), by allowing the word `knowledge' to come to signify some one or another body of teachings!

Great post, Taijasi! I particularly liked the above paragraph .

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

I think you've got it backwards, though. The "right" thinking side of the equation begins slandering and prosecuting free-thinkers, who want to continue to be free-thinkers (and teach others about the joys of free-thinking) and they defend themselves. It's often a losing battle, because the mere act of defending one's self against proponents of "creeds" is itself considered a heresy. I see no evidence of the "orthodoxy" until middle of the second century - well after the existence of Gnostic thought in Christianity.

Perhaps we both have it wrong. Everyone considers themself a free-thinker, and each naturally considers themself right. Orthodox Christianity is not devoid of gnosis. I don't see why those who ultimately came to be viewed as the orthodoxy could be considered the only ones defining heresy and picking battles. If I remember correctly Elaine Pagels also points out that the gnostics could be quite vehement in their own polemics against the proto-orthodox. So, creeds and heresy do go together, but you could aslo say that creed is unifying while heresy is divisive. And it's not like the creeds outline something that could be considered offensive. If you don't accept it, you don't accept it. As far as I can tell, the creeds do not refute gnosis as an approach, but only some of the pervasive gnostic ideas of the day.

"Correct about what?" is the important question. Gnostics can be correct about the method and not genuinely care one lick about the literal truth of a cosmology expressed in a myth.

OK, then why would they have any problem at all with the content of the creed? It essentially lays out the cosmology of orthodox Christiantiy.

I don't have any firm opinions about matters that are unknowable to me, that are beyond my comprehension, or that are not subject to being meaningfully expressed by our limited tools of language and logic.

But isn't that exactly what the creeds and doctrine address? It's about a way to approach the unknowable, to give us a common way to think about something that can't be contained in language.

On matters that can be investigated and examined, that is a different issue altogether. "God is a Trinity" is a claim that cannot be investigated (and frankly doesn't mean anything to me), so it really doesn't concern me, nor do I care whether someone else agrees or disagrees with it.

Using this as an example, saying that God is Trinity is meaningless, unless there is a shared understanding of this by a community. Doctrine and creeds are not about keeping people out (or at least they should not be), they are about building shared experience, understanding, and relationship. I can't see any reason to accept the doctrine of the Trinity except for choosing to trust the community that shares that belief. Has anyone who has never before heard of Jesus or Christianity popped into view and said, I just had a vision/experience of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

Speaking just about metaphysics, if one wishes they can choose to believe anything they can imagine, but if they are the only one who believes such then what good does it do? These things are by definition outside the realm of objective testability. Who cares if you believe there is an invisible dragon in your garage, unless someone else decides to believe it too. Then you've got community.

"The words of the Bible are an unaltered record of the teachings of Jesus as conveyed to the Twelve Apostles", however, is an empirical claim. It can be investigated if someone is genuinely interested. Will we ever know the answer with any solid certainty? Probably not. The best that can happen is that we can either be convinced or not convinced by the evidence we discover. And in such situations it's okay to disagree without slandering (or worse) those we disagree with.

I agree that sometimes these debates get too personal. Funny, while I am interested in the kinds of questions that can be empirically addressed, whether or not an answer can be known, it still does not significantly change how or what I believe. Other things certainly can and have.

I think Orthodoxy/Catholic considered itself right-thinking from its inception. It has always oriented itself around prosecuting dissent - it is the method by which it defines itself. I recommend reading the writings of Tertullian and Ireneaus and paying careful attention to the types of arguments they made and think about why they approached things the way they did. As I said earlier, it is not a disagreement about theological ideas. It is a different method of knowing one's self, which gives birth to an entirely different sort of vision.

I can see I need to do some homework here. What do you think of this site as a resource: early Christian Writings? Naturally orthodoxy considered itself right-thinking. And Gnostics considered themselves right-thinking. Now, the claim that the method of orthodoxy has always been to prosecute dissent is something I need to examine. This interests me because I would like to compare it to what is happening in the Baha'i Faith, and how I process my experience in and rejection of that religion. To my way of understanding, you can kick people out of your religion for not accepting the dogma, but you can't at the same time claim that your religion is the Kingdom of God.

It was kind of a joke actually. I used a Christian symbol to impart a meaning in the mind of many readers that was different than the meaning I subjectively intended. It was really intended for you since I figured you'd probably recognize both meanings.

I did get your meanings. Thus the value of shared metaphor.

We are already there.

His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

[/quote]I like this a lot.

I hope some of this makes sense. Please forgive me for the awkward way I have of expressing these things. I learn a lot from reading and replying to your posts.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Gnosteric

Yes, the GoT and Pagels' books are a great place to start. The Gnostic Bible (edited by Barnstone & Meyer) is also a regular on my bedside nightstand and several modern Gnostics prefer the Gnostic Scriptures (translated by Bently Layton).

OK, I was going to give you the following links, but can't.

If one would like to read the writings without purchasing, The Gnostic Society has a great page with most (if not all) of the Gnostic texts at (not allowed)

My favorite summary of modern Gnosticism can be found by Bishop Stephan Hoeller in "Gnosticism; New Light On The Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing." Bishop Hoeller is connected with the Ecclesia Gnostica. You can read their intro at (not allowed)

Another modern Gnostic Church, the Apostolic Johannite Church, can be viewed at (not allowed)

Oh well, maybe someone else can link them for me. IMO, they could be such helpful links......and I'm not related to any of them!

Welcome to CR, Gnosteric.

[Gnosteric]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Paul was a Jew, I believe.

Yes, he was. He also had a religious experience that many consider to be an obvious example of gnosis. His writings (and not the forged letters) are believed to maintain much Gnostic wisdom for those that are initiated into the myths.

I will only answer the following questions with some mild protest. I do not think that definition/description does service to any of your queries. We need myth to better answer these types of questions…..and that’s exactly what the best Gnostic scriptures do.

I might just slide further into darkness with this attempt, but here goes. Again, I am only speaking for this Gnost(er)ic.

What is your concept of God?

An ineffable source of All that can only be (and should only be) “pointed to.” Wholeness. Syzygy of all opposites.

Would you express it that you have some kind of personal relationship with God?

Sure! Everyone of us has a Divine Spark and that is how we can “personally” relate to the Source. It is also how we can “personally” relate to the Divine in each other…….and it is how we can accept the Unity that we all share in. We are as connected as anything that has emanated. But don’t take the personal too far because the Ineffable/Silence can really only be expressed (outside of myth) in negative terms.

Is Gnosis a breakthrough in understanding God or understanding yourself, or yourself in God?

It is an awakening to who we are, where we have come from, and were we are going. It is also an awakening to the illusion. So……all the above and more.

Do Gnostics agree on this point?

As much as Christians agree on things.

There is an affinity between Traditional Christianity and Buddhism, I think.

Sometimes I think Gnosticism is a form of Zen......and vice versa.

[Gnosteric]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Welcome to CR, Gnosteric.

Thanks for the welcome. Now can I post my links?

[earl]

Originally Posted by Gnosteric

Yes, he was. He also had a religious experience that many consider to be an obvious example of gnosis. His writings (and not the forged letters) are believed to maintain much Gnostic wisdom for those that are initiated into the myths.

I will only answer the following questions with some mild protest. I do not think that definition/description does service to any of your queries. We need myth to better answer these types of questions…..and that’s exactly what the best Gnostic scriptures do.

I might just slide further into darkness with this attempt, but here goes. Again, I am only speaking for this Gnost(er)ic.


An ineffable source of All that can only be (and should only be) “pointed to.” Wholeness. Syzygy of all opposites.

Sure! Everyone of us has a Divine Spark and that is how we can “personally” relate to the Source. It is also how we can “personally” relate to the Divine in each other…….and it is how we can accept the Unity that we all share in. We are as connected as anything that has emanated. But don’t take the personal too far because the Ineffable/Silence can really only be expressed (outside of myth) in negative terms.


It is an awakening to who we are, where we have come from, and were we are going. It is also an awakening to the illusion. So……all the above and more.


As much as Christians agree on things.


Sometimes I think Gnosticism is a form of Zen......and vice versa.

Hey Gnosteric & welcome. I consider myself a "neo-gnostic," zen kind of dude I tend to think, however, that what we are called to is not so much a "knowing" but a quality of "not knowing" which enables a fuller flowering of being. Tariki-one of my favorite "ecumenists" had quoted part of the wonderful quote of TS Eliot in another thread here. I'd like to quote him myself to illustrate this:

"You say I am repeating
Something I have said before. I shall say it again.
Shall I say it again? In order to arrive there,
To arrive where you are, to get where you are not,
you must go by a way wherein there is no ecstasy.
In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way that is the way of ignorance.
In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.
In order to arrive at what you are not
you must go through the way you are not
And what you do not know is the only thing you know
And what you own is what you do not own
And where you are is where you are not."

Perhaps it is only by not stopping, resting in an artifical certainty of beliefs do we move into a true openness of being that can manifest all that Is. Perhaps Love is a better approximation of that-the heart-not the "head." Gnosis as being not an intellectual construct or modality. Take care, earl

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by earl

Hey Gnosteric & welcome. I consider myself a "neo-gnostic," zen kind of dude I tend to think, however, that what we are called to is not so much a "knowing" but a quality of "not knowing" which enables a fuller flowering of being. Tariki-one of my favorite "ecumenists" had quoted part of the wonderful quote of TS Eliot in another thread here. I'd like to quote him myself to illustrate this:

"You say I am repeating
Something I have said before. I shall say it again.
Shall I say it again? In order to arrive there,
To arrive where you are, to get where you are not,
you must go by a way wherein there is no ecstasy.
In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way that is the way of ignorance.
In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.
In order to arrive at what you are not
you must go through the way you are not
And what you do not know is the only thing you know
And what you own is what you do not own
And where you are is where you are not."

Perhaps it is only by not stopping, resting in an artifical certainty of beliefs do we move into a true openness of being that can manifest all that Is. Perhaps Love is a better approximation of that-the heart-not the "head." Gnosis as being not an intellectual construct or modality. Take care, earl

Hi earl, lovely post. peace, luna

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Gnosteric

Yes, he was. He also had a religious experience that many consider to be an obvious example of gnosis. His writings (and not the forged letters) are believed to maintain much Gnostic wisdom for those that are initiated into the myths.

I will only answer the following questions with some mild protest. I do not think that definition/description does service to any of your queries. We need myth to better answer these types of questions…..and that’s exactly what the best Gnostic scriptures do.

I might just slide further into darkness with this attempt, but here goes. Again, I am only speaking for this Gnost(er)ic.


An ineffable source of All that can only be (and should only be) “pointed to.” Wholeness. Syzygy of all opposites.

Sure! Everyone of us has a Divine Spark and that is how we can “personally” relate to the Source. It is also how we can “personally” relate to the Divine in each other…….and it is how we can accept the Unity that we all share in. We are as connected as anything that has emanated. But don’t take the personal too far because the Ineffable/Silence can really only be expressed (outside of myth) in negative terms.


It is an awakening to who we are, where we have come from, and were we are going. It is also an awakening to the illusion. So……all the above and more.


As much as Christians agree on things.


Sometimes I think Gnosticism is a form of Zen......and vice versa.

Thank you for the replies Gnosteric. I did not mean to cause you any kind of consternation by asking these questions. I certainly hope you did not slide any further into darkness by the attempt! For me, asking and trying to answer questions helps me clarify my thinking, even if sometimes it gets cloudier before the light appears.

From the replies here I agree with you that Gnosticism is a kind of Zen, although it relates to unknowing, rather than knowing. Maybe in the end both are the same?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Perhaps we both have it wrong. Everyone considers themself a free-thinker, and each naturally considers themself right.

Well, yes and no. Sure, everyone considers themselves a free-thinker. But it's not necessarily true that everyone considers themselves "right", or, more to the point, it is not necessarily the case that everyone considers everyone who disagrees with them as "wrong."

One of the things I've stressed in this topic is that the "right-thinking" in Orthodoxy defines itself by prosecuting. That's why it's useful to read the origins of their methods. The idea of a creed is to make a declaration about objective truth (which necessarily implies that that the creedmakers' are right). Think about this: As many have correctly pointed out, Gnostics make all kinds of claims that significantly differ from one another. Indeed, the broader context of gnosticism or mysticism involves people of entirely different faith traditions, using completely different cultures and symbols to communicate to still come together despite the different ways they may express their spiritual experience. And one doesn't claim access to one, defined objective truth to which the others are not privy.

But dogma (and its "creeds"), is a different sort of thing. Sure, a person deciding for themselves what they "believe," is inevitable and necessary. But creeds don't serve that purpose. They serve the purpose of creating uniformity in thinking. That was the express purpose that Ireneaus undertook in the late second century - to create one "Christianity" out of many. And when a creed becomes accepted, it defines itself by distinguishing "heresies." This is the fundamental problem that sits beneath the religious conflicts that have raged for thousands of years and still obviously haunt us today. The inevitable result of building one's identity around a creed and based on faith is that others don't just disagree with the beleiver -they must necessarily be wrong. And not wrong in some inconsequential sense usually, but wrong in the grand cosmic sense of being bamboozled by evil spiritual forces and acting as an agent of some imagined devil. While in practice an individual certainly may be able to constrain himself from acting out on this perception of others, I think two things should be acknowledged: (1) to perceive that there is only one objetively correct way to express the truth makes it nigh impossible to really listen to what others are saying; and, (2) en masse the thinking behind creeds (and not just religious creeds) becomes disastrous and often downright monstrous.


The gnostic tries to hear the human experience behind the symbols to find the connection to others and affirm our humanity. It's a way too complicated topic to go into here and probably deserves a seperate conversation, buy symbolic language and its relationship to identity and reason is a principal vehicle for gnosis. It's an attempt to find the humanity behind the veil of identity.

If a person wants to make empirical claims about external reality, we do have a common language by which to discuss them - scientific method. We can investigate the evidence for and against a factual claim and arrive at whatever conclusions we may feel compelled by the evidence to make. And they may be different from one another, because reasonable people can certainly differ on the interpretation of evidence. But "facts" about external reality taken solely on faith are typically not open to investigation, so the one of the common tools of the modern world that allows us to communicate, despite our differences, is lost to us. And there's nothing wrong even with that. If a person subjectively has been moved by their experience to have 'faith' in a particular set of propositions about external reality, while we might be able to investigate the evidence, we are unlikely to reach a consensus. Who am I to claim to have reached the only right conclusion? What do I know that would entitle me to make such a claim?

Because Gnosis is misunderstood as making claims about external reality as is done in creeds, it is ridiculed as a heresy and labeled "wrong" thinking. Which takes us back to why I originally responded to Thomas in the first place, which is that he was misrepresenting Gnosticism (a straw man, like I said) so that he could ridicule it. And he was ridiculing it based on its divergence from his preferred creed, which is why they particular subject of creeds was the starting point for the conversation about gnosis.

I can't convince Thomas he's wrong, nor am I interested in trying to do so. I can give an honest account of what moves me to share my ideas and experiences with others. I can do my best to listen to what others explain moved them to do the same thing. And we can try to find a common ground. And if we don't, we respectfully disagree with one another, accepting that nobody really knows the objective truths of the cosmos.

Sorry if I rambled. But does this make sense?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Short version: My objection to creeds is that they are often uttered to a baseline by which all who disagree may be adjudged wrong - and that is certainly how they've been used in Thomas's posts. If someone wants to believe in a creed, it's not for me to say they are wrong. But, by the same token, that I might disagree (or more to the point, not "believe" in or accept the creed) doesn't make me wrong either.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Gnosteric

Thanks for the welcome. Now can I post my links?

Sorry about that - it's a script that prevents the spammers from hitting the forums. I think it's after 10 posts you should be fine.

Abogado, it's also nice to see you back as well.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

But does this make sense?

Yes. That makes a lot of sense.

luna

[Gnosteric]

I came across the following quote, from Rev. Jordon Stratford, regarding the relationship between Christianity and Gnosticism. It gave me a chuckle....hope it does the same for you.

"To start off I'd like to clarify something; Gnosticism and Christianity are like companions in a buddy movie - they are on the road together, and share histories and experiences, but they are not the same person. One character can form bonds with the other, genuinely become concerned about him, without becoming him. Well, maybe more like roommates where one guy drinks milk out of the carton and keeps threating to evict you from "his place". But I digress."

Rev. Stratford has a great blog at egina2 . blogspot. com/